Randomiser

I thought volume was used as a limiting factor, rather than footprint, but maybe I have that wrong. Presumably easy to look up the relevant planing policy on the local authority's website.

Thank you for raising a very good question. But thank you even more for the answer!

I said how much do they charge per hour, of course I should have said how much do they charge per meter? ?

I tend to agree that demolishing a chimney would not do the trick, but if the permission requires demolition of part of the building - say that bay window - then I think it is worth seeing if that is sufficient under TCPA 1990 para 56. "...(2)For the purposes of the provisions of this Part mentioned in subsection (3) development shall be taken to be begun on the earliest date on which any material operation comprised in the development begins to be carried out. (3)The provisions referred to in subsection (2) are sections [F861L(5) and (7),] 85(2), 86(6), 87(4), [F989] 91, 92 [F10, 94 and 108(3E)(c)(i)]. (4)In subsection (2) “material operation” means— (a)any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building; F1 [(aa)any work of demolition of a building;] (b)the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building; (c)the laying of any underground main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building or to any such trench as is mentioned in paragraph (b); (d)any operation in the course of laying out or constructing a road or part of a road; (e)any change in the use of any land which constitutes material development...." See here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/part/III Of course it may be argued that you are not demolitioning a building, but only part of a building. The issue here is that as far as I am aware TCPA 1990 does not define a building, but the Building Regulations 2010 does define a Building as "...any permanent or temporary building but not any other kind of structure or erection, and a reference to a building includes a reference to part of a building." So I would argue there is a definition of Building in law and that definition says part of a building, i.e. your bay window, counts. All highlighting by me, not in the original. For goodness sake don't rely on this, take professional advice, but I hope it is a helpful starting point. Randomiser.

Thanks for that. I already have a contact point with the Wayleave Team as I got confirmation from them that there was nothing in place at the moment. I had, maybe wrongly, got the impression that it was really only a record keeping department but it certainly makes sense as an initial point of contact. Thanks again. Randomiser.

OK, so right on the service level deadline I received my quote from the DNO for the cable re-routing. They have quoted £7,400 plus change to remove one pole, lay 88m of "185mm Wavecon" and make all the reconnections. However, this assumes that we do all of the trenches and backfilling, despite me telling them that I would like them to provide a quote that included them doing this when I was called by the designer. However, from that previous discussion I believe they charge for the trenching and backfill on a per meter basis, so it should not be that hard for him to give me that number. Does anyone happen to have an idea what they might charge an hour? I'm guessing that it may take a while for him to get back to me with the official number. The quote includes moving a pole that is actually just on my neighbour's land to be on ours, I am pretty sure the neighbour will not have an issue with this. Interestingly the designer called me to discuss this and he said that if I did not agree to this they would have to underground to the next pole and that would mean digging up the road which would mean it would be much more expensive - he really emphasised the word much. I see that as good news as it means that when I negotiate who is paying for this (given there is no wayleave) they will have to bear in mind that higher cost if they do not agree to this and I tell them to remove their equipment. Now I have a quote my mind is turning to the negotiation phase. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what part of the DNO I need to engage with? I do not think just going back to the guy that designed the rerouting will be productive. Thanks in advance. Randomiser.

The answer is provided in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In paragraph 56 it says: "...(2)For the purposes of the provisions of this Part mentioned in subsection (3) development shall be taken to be begun on the earliest date on which any material operation comprised in the development begins to be carried out. (3)The provisions referred to in subsection (2) are sections [F861L(5) and (7),] 85(2), 86(6), 87(4), [F989] 91, 92 [F10, 94 and 108(3E)(c)(i)]. (4)In subsection (2) “material operation” means— (a)any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building; F1 [(aa)any work of demolition of a building;] (b)the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building; (c)the laying of any underground main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building or to any such trench as is mentioned in paragraph (b); (d)any operation in the course of laying out or constructing a road or part of a road; (e)any change in the use of any land which constitutes material development...." See here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/part/III So if the garage is part of the consent digging the foundations for the garage would appear to be sufficient. But for the same reason, as it is part of a single consent I am not convinced you are right that you would not need to deal with Building Regulations. That said, I am not sure you need to have started, I have seen many examples where reference in a planning decision is made to an extant permission that has not been enacted. Hope that helps. Randomiser.

Happy to explain the reasoning, I didn't in the first post as I didn't want it to become too much of an epic! The derelict house is being broken in to on a regular basis, if what some of the neighbours tell me is correct it is by local youngsters but I have no concrete evidence for who it is. It doesn't seem to matter what is done to secure the house they are determined enough to break their way back in. There is clear evidence that whoever is breaking in is doing a lot of drinking there and maybe worse. So my primary concern is that I don't want somebody, possibly under the influence to do something silly and end up getting killed in the not particularly safe house. So, while it may sound a bit cliched, I'm trying to do the right thing. The reason I can't just get the pre-conditions satisfied really comes down to one word - trees. There are a number of restrictions on the site due to root protection areas (RPAs), including the design of the foundations. I am in discussions with the SE and the most likely answer at this stage is helical piles, but even the design of these is likely to need investigations to check none of them are being located where there are significant roots. So it is not just a case of submitting material samples, etc. I also have a specific reason for not wanting the the pre-commencement conditions met and development to have started yet, which I alluded to above. We need to have a power line diverted, I think the best option is to have it put underground. If the development has started I am concerned that it will be much more difficult to get the cable put underground. There is a condition that requires an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) to be complied with and the cable would have to run across an RPA that the AMS says needs to be fenced off and which cannot be entered during construction. My understanding is that until the development has commenced, by definition the the conditions are not applicable, so they would not stop the cable being put underground. I am still waiting on the quote for the diversion of the cable and will only then be able to begin any negotiation on who is paying for this (as there is no easement or wayleave in place), so that work is not going to happen quickly. There is no specific condition in the consent about the demolition that I can see. But the application was described as demolition and replacement, it could hardly be anything else as the footprint of the new house overlaps the derelict one that needs to be demolished. The site is within a settlement, so I do not think the permission is dependent on a one-for-one demolition and build, but I am more than happy to agree that a lot of strange things happen in 'planning world'. There was a similar discussion on here on a thread I had about trees, the view then was that while there would be nothing to stop a tree being taken down before the development commenced the devlopers may react negatively and look for reasons to give me a hard time. So in summary the sequence of events I would like is: 1. Demolition old house 2. Put electricity cable underground once negotiations complete 3. Satisfy pre-commencement conditions 4. Start work At the end of the day the electricity cable is what definitely affects me directly, demolishing the house is just about me being concerned about the risk to others so if demolition would risk invalidating the consent then I giess I would just not do it. Thanks again for any input, Randomiser.

I think all of that is valid comment and it is without doubt a complex point. I was trying to think about it in a similar way to permission to do work on TPOed trees. Under our consent we are allowed to raise the crown on two trees, but like the demolition I can't have the work done until all the pre-commencement conditions have been satisfied. My work around was to simply apply for a separate consent to do the same work on the trees. Then as and when the work on the trees is done if I have not met all the pre-commencement conditions it is the stand alone consent I am enacting, not the consent for the house. If planning consent was required for demolition I could do the same thing, but as I said above I don't think planning consent is required instead it is a section 80 notice to 'apply' and a section 81 for the council to agree it. I guess if I submit the section 80 and they think it is an issue that the demolition is tied to the consent and the pre-commencement conditions are not discharged they can just refuse to issue the section 81 and give that as the reason. From a practical point of view if they issue the section 81 notice then the chances of the same council team raising an issue with the demolition is pretty remote. Tricky one. Randomiser.

Presumably submitting the s.80 notice would be considered notice? Or do you think there is a separate requirement? Randomiser

The condition does not give any timing restrictions. The house was said to be in such a poor state that the chances of bats were deemed low, but unfortu ately not negligable The requirement for a watching brief during the hand stripping of the roof was in lieu of carrying out any further bat surveys. Is there an overriding legislative restriction irrespective of the conditioning?

As per previous threads, we already have planning consent for a new house but we are trying to navigate a sequence of events so as not to trigger the commencement of development too soon. These include issues with trees and the need to relocate a powerline. We are working through the various pre-commencement conditions, but at this stage we want to be in control of when we are in a position to start development. There is a derelict house on the site and the planning consent is to replace that derelict house, it has to be demolished for the new house to be built. There is a requirement for the roof to be hand stripped and the strip to be monitored by a bat expert. For a couple of reasons we now think it makes sense to demolish the existing house before we commence development. Under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 demolition is a "material operation" and therefore means a development has started. However, I do not believe demolition needs planning consent, under the Building Act 1984 what is required is to issue a Section 80 notice to the council, the council then has six weeks to respond with a Section 81 notice, which can contain conditions for the demolition work. So, I want to carry out the demolition, but I do not want it to be considered a "material operation" under the existing consent because if it is I will have started development before the pre-commencement conditions have been discharged and will presumably be in breach of the planning consent. My plan is therefore to submit the council's s.80 form, but with a letter attached to it which states that: 1) the demolition work was approved as part of an application 2) that there were conditions relating to protecting bats during the demolition in the decision notice giving consent 3) I know that the pre-conditions for the consent have not been discharged 4) that I am submitting the s.80 notice on a standalone basis, not as part of the approved scheme and that I do not believe it constitutes commencement of the development 5) that during the demolition I will take actions equivalent to those required under the consent with regard to bats Are there any thoughts on whether, if the council issues the s.81 notice approving the demolition, I am reasonably protected in terms of them later saying I started development without meeting the pre-commencement conditions? I am also thinking about adding a 6th point saying something along the lines of "by issuing a s.81 notice the council are confirming their agreement to this not being the start of development". If I do this I am concerned it may make it less likely that the council will issue the s.81 notice, so I would only do so if adding this point strengthens my position considerably. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Randomiser.

Many thanks for the replies everyone, I will consider and raise the differential movement point with the SE. Our SE said his 'gut feel' is that if you end up below 2 metres with strip foundations it starts to become more economic to use piles. Add to that the water table is less than 1 metre below ground, he said we would also need to pump the water out of any trenches before they can be filled with concrete. Given our main consideration for the foundations is cost (structural soundness is obviously a given) I hope his initial view is correct. Even if we went with strip foundations for most of the house we would almost certainly be made to use piles where the root protection area is, I guess there is a fixed cost for mobilising the piling team, equipment, etc. so once they are there the cost to do the rest with piles becomes relatively less. There is a secondary issue in that with part of the site over a root protection area if we have to put large machinery in that area we would need to spend a lot protecting the ground from compaction, with the helical piles my understanding is that they can be installed (is that the right term?) with a relatively small digger with an appropriate 'head' attached.

Our site has a few challenges with regard to foundations. There is a root protection area under part of the footprint, the are many trees around the house, the soil is clay and the water table is high. The discussions with the structural engineer have therefore been along the lines of piled foundations. However, he has suggested it may make financial sense to go with a raft foundation for the attached garage. At a recent meeting I suggested that while the main house is likely to be brick and block construction maybe we could construct a timber frame garage, I raised this as I thought that this would be lighter than a brick built garage and therefore help in terms of the cost and complexity of the garage foundation. The structural engineer said he did not think that building regulations would allow this. I've had a look on the internet and while I can find the building regulations documents I can't find anything that relates specifically to an attached garage. I wondered if anyone knows if there is anything specific on an attached garage or are the requirements embedded in the regulations for houses? Many thanks in advance, Randomiser.

Looks very nice, even behind the scaffold! Looking forward to the blog post, but expensive and stressful is not really what I am after! Randomiser.

John I did check with the DNO and there are no legal agreements on file. So no paperwork to get sight of. Randomiser.

Thanks to everyone who gave me input. I phoned up SSEN today to initiate discussions. Not much engagement, but I suspect I was speaking to a call handler that deals with a range of topics. So based on his advice I have now submitted the form which will kick off the quote process. I did raise the fact that I would be looking to negotiate on the cost due to the lack of any wayleave for the pole and cable but I think it went over his head a bit, he just said that nobody would even speak to me until I had started the quote process. I'll update as soon as I make some progress in case my experience is useful for others in the future. Randomiser.

Oops, quoted wrong post before. Weebles I wondered if the render and cladding was finished yet? We are thinking of a similar combination so I'm interested in your experience. Randomiser.

Oops

Thanks for the additional advice, it makes a lot of sense to get the connection dealt with at the same time. We are at an early stage, so hopefully will not cause a big delay if I get on to it now. Randomiser.

OK, that's really helpful. Thank you everyone. The wayleave team gave me the number of their engineering department, so I think I will give them a call to initiate engagement with them. As per advice above I'll start by playing nicely. If things do cut up rough is there any risk that I can be refused an electricity connection? Thanks, Randomiser.

Does this mean the pole and cables are not owned by the DNO, but by the electricity provider? The cables go from the pole on our site, to a pole on the neighhour's land and then across the road to another pole where it then starts to connect to properties. If does not supply the derelict house on pur site, it has no connection at the moment. If it does not belong to the DNO is there no need for there to be a wayleave? At the end of the day I am not so worried about the value of the wayleave, only that the ultimate ability to tell them to "get your pole off my land" gives me levergare to have it moved at low or no cost. Thanks in advance, Randomiser.

I contacted the DNO asking for the details of the wayleave and they have responded that they have no record of one.

I apologise for starting another topic on this subject, I know there are others on here which I have read, but I can't find a discussion of the same situation I am in. There is a wooden pole on our plot with what I believe to be a 400v powerline running off it across our plot to another wooden pole just over the boundary on a neighbour's land. The powerline 'overflies' the existing (derelict) house on the land, albeit over a single storey part of the existing house. Under the approved plans the replacement house (all two storey) will also sit under the cable. I contacted the DNO covering the plot and they have replied telling me that there is no record of any legal agreement in place covering the equipment on the plot. The other threads I have found on here are where there is a wayleave in place. I do not know the exact height that the cable is over the current house, or what it will be over the approved house, but my best estimate is that the cable is little more than (what I understand to be the legal minimum height of) 5.2m above the ground. I have tried to find if there is a legal minimum clearance over a house for a 400v cable, but can't find anything so far - though I have seen a comment on another thread that in Kent cables can't 'overly' houses, I do not know if they were 400v cables and if this is a local restriction or a national one. If the cable is at about 5.2m it is only about 1.5m above the single storey section of the existing house, the new house at 7.6m high clearly won't fit under the cable. At this stage the DNO can not say with certainty that the existing house is going to be demolished, it is perfectly possible that instead of building a new house the existing one could be refurbished. My objective (probably pretty obviously) is to get the cable out of the way of the replacement house at no or the lowest possible cost. Given all of this, I would be interested in any thoughts anyone has with regard to the best approach to securing either the relocation of the pole or the 'undergrounding' of the cable with the DNO picking up all or at least most of the cost. Thanks in advance for any thoughts, Randomiser.

I mean a limited exemption to the usual requirement for a boundary fence above 1m at the front of a property. I am happy to contemplate doing it in contravention of any requirement, but would like to understand what I may be in breach of before doing so. In answer to another question, we will not be living on site and are about 40 minutes away, but will be going over most days. As we will not be near by our concern is really the evenings when nobody will be on site.